Cameron’s US trip is critical for Ukraine
Lord Cameron’s mission to America to unblock support for Ukraine has come at a critical time in the war with Russia. Volodymyr Zelensky said on Sunday that his country would lose if US aid is withheld and air cover is not improved.
Approval for a £49billion package for Kyiv proposed by President Biden is being held up on Capitol Hill amid inter-party wrangling and has not yet been voted upon. Republicans in the House of Representatives say they want additional funding for border security agreed first before giving the go ahead to the Ukraine funding.
The Foreign Secretary’s first stop was at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-lago resort in Florida, for talks with the past and possibly next president. He has been critical of the amount America is handing over to Ukraine and Nato in general, accusing the Europeans of not spending anywhere near enough on their own security.
Mr Trump’s agreement to the package could well unblock the logjam but so far it has not been forthcoming. Lord Cameron was unwilling to give details of what he said was a private meeting. He later held talks with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who urged Congress to vote on the package as a matter of urgency. He pointed out that most of the money would actually be spent on arms production in America, providing thousands of jobs.
Lord Cameron responded to criticism that he was interfering in American decision-making by insisting he was not there to lecture anyone but to make the argument that it was in America’s interests to see Russia defeated.
He said the Ukrainians can still win the war if they are given what they need, including air defences, more ammunition and money. Key to this is what to do with the $300billion of Russian assets frozen when the invasion happened.
Their confiscation is now actively being discussed ahead of a Nato summit in Japan next month and an agreement to do so would render the release of more US funds much less critical. This would pay for the equipment Ukraine needs.
Under international law such a move needs a vote in the UN Security Council, a judgment by the International Court of Justice or a post-war settlement. None of these will happen in the next few months, if ever. But why should taxpayers in America or Europe pay more to counter Russia’s aggression or repair the damage they have caused when so much of their own money is available?